Discussing Palin: Keith talks Oprah and fact-checks the book, Larry King's Palin Panel

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 22:20:44 PM AKST

Well, ya'll probably figured out that so many of you went to Mudflats to live-blog Oprah that the site crashed.  None of us got a chance to chat with you while we were watching, but it was INCREDIBLY hard to contain myself hearing all the things she was saying!

And yes, when it turned out that Piper's "Halloween costume" was her Arctic Cat gear, I was amazed that Oprah would allow such an obviously staged event on her show.  While Piper is in the Arctic Cat gear, she doesn't have her friends with her like Palin is discussing.  However, if you see the end of the linked video, it shows Piper putting on a princess costume...the real one. I think this week has made it pretty clear that she's built a condo in her brain just for me!

Anyway, there have been lots of shows on Palin today.  Some of the best:

Keith Olbermann does a review of Palins appearance on Oprah:

...plus he does a fact-check on "Going Rogue" with information from the angry former McCain campaign members:

Here is Kristan Cole and Flavor-of-the-week-Cupp representing Palin on Larry King.  Watch Stephanie Miller and James Carville bitch-slap them!

So...watch and discuss while I get ready to head out in the morning and...sigh...buy the book.

How are the "Palin books" handling the ex-Gov's legal challenges? **UPDATE 2** HarperCollins email!

by: Celtic Diva

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 14:37:30 PM AKST

I have been watching the emergence of the various books on Palin...from "journalists" who followed her campaign, to "writers" who don't understand the first thing about non-fiction and research, to Palin's own book.  My interest has been purely in determining how each will handle the information about the state Records Requests (FOIAs), the Personnel Board, Ethics Complaints and the APOC investigation.  The books I'm looking at are "Sarah from Alaska," released several weeks ago, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" released this week and, because of a kind gentleman who gifted me with the pages, "Going Rogue," Palins own book not set to be released until Tuesday.

1)  APOC Investigation:  NOTHING.  Not ONE of these books even mentions that Alaska Public Offices Commission is investigating Sarah Palin's lack of sponsorship/Arctic Cat monetary information on Calendar Year 2008's Financial Disclosure form.  They also don't mention her non-compliance in revealing that information to them even though they have asked multiple times.

So, one of the most important and damning issues regarding Palin isn't mentioned in any book so far!  Hmmmmm...

2)  Ethics Complaints:  "Sarah from Alaska" covers it in just two pages...basically  including Arctic Cat...which is how my name got in the index (page 240!).

Here is PAGE 239 and PAGE 240.

As you can see, it was mostly rehashing Palin's bogus assertion of "frivolousness," and they were critical in their interpretation of their interview with Andree McLeod.  However the book did take her to task for her high-schoolish responses to each complaint's dismissal.  The authors also chastise Palin for her inappropriate response to me when the Arctic Cat complaint was filed.

Regarding Matthew Continetti's book...

I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday, grabbed his "persecution complex" book and a cup of coffee and sat down to speed read/skim.  

That's an hour-and-a-half of my life that I want back.

Continetti occasionally talks about having "lunch" with someone to get inforamtion, like AK Republican Party head Randy Ruedrich.  However, overall his book has a) no index b) no footnotes c) no endnotes d) no references and e) frequently uses sources like "a University professor" or "an Alaska insider." (Even his friends on Conservatives4Palin bust him for it.) When he reams Charley James for lousy sourcing last year, I laughed out loud.  When he talked about progressive blogs "linking" to James' article anyway, without mentioning those of us that took him to task, I just got angry.  

With all of that in mind, I was not surprised that basically one paragraph on one page (211) is dedicated to the entireity of Palin's legal challenges.  Continetti's presentation of the ethics complaints can be summed up in this factually challenged "quote" from the book, attributed to Legislator Gene Therriault:

"That was part of the Democratic plan to grind her up; use the ethics law as a blunt instrument to club the administration."

I guess the fact that of the 20+ ethics complaints filed, only 3 (that I know of) were filed by folks who are actual Democrats.  As Mr. Therriault knows quite well, Andree McLeod is strongly Republican, and I believe the rest were filed by non-partisan folks.

The thought of trying to get Andree McLeod to join a "Democratic Plan" just makes me laugh.

At least Continetti fixed his mistake regarding what my Artic Cat claim was about.  In his original article on the subject (that was riddled with inaccuracies), "Out of Alaska" in The Weekly Standard, he claimed that Palin was wearing an Arctic Cat "t-shirt."

I also found it interesting that he tied this line from Palin in with the Arctic Cat complaint:

"I got to the point where I said, 'May I just plead guilty?'?" she told me.

While Palin also attributes that line to the Arctic Cat complaint, parts of her "ethics" story is somewhat different in her own book, "Going Rogue."  The first two pages were posted early this morning which showed the direction her explanation was going...Andree McLeod-bashing.  We see much more of that nastiness in the next two pages:

HERE and HERE.

First off, Palin lied...there was never an official "complaint" about the dress code from McLeod and the target of the letter wasn't Palin.  Since her previous job with the State of Alaska Department of Labor was helping people prepare for the workforce, Andree McLeod was hyper-aware of what clothing was not appropriate for the government workplace...especially those folks who regularly deal with the public.  The letter was intended for Annette Kreitzer who dealt with those issues for the Office of the Governor.  When they decided misconstruing this was great way to attack McLeod, they passed this email to Alaska Ear gossipper Sheila Toomey.  The rest led to several records requests.

Considering all of the ethics complaints, I found it interesting that she spent the most amount of time lying (and bitching) about Arctic Cat.  

--She claimed that she'd been wearing "the logo and team colors for years."  Not while she was Governor and starting the Iron Dog race, she wasn't!  I went back three years and she never had a sports jacket on during that race.  

--She says the jacket "happened to be the team colors"...actually, it wasn't for 2009.  Team Davis/Palin's snow machines and outfits were orange and black while hers were yellow and green.  It's the big HUGE Arctic Cat logos all over the jacket and pants that made the difference.

A little worried about the eventual outcome of the APOC investigation, are we?

Of course, the other ethics issue she spends a little time on is the Alaska Fund Trust, that she "covers" on PAGE 374.

Wait a sec...did she just insinuate that the ethics complaint against her over the Alaska Fund Trust was the last straw in her decision to quit her job?  Where did I read that before?

So far, the authors have not bothered to achieve a working understanding of Palin's legal issues and the problems that still face her. I look forward to the more accurate books coming out from Geoffrey Dunn and Joe McGinness to see what they have to say about her legal troubles.

You can also look forward to future posts on the blog!

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

--As "EyeOnYou" pointed out in the comments (and I forgot to emphasize) Sheila Toomey insinuated via email that the way she got the Andree's memo was through a records request.  Nice that Palin cleared that up for us.

--Forgot to point out the rehashed lie that the ethics complaints were all dismissed.  There are still several complaints out there BESIDES the AK Fund Trust issue that should have dragged her in front of a hearing by now.

--The official Arctic Cat complaint cited her for vioation of AS 39.52.120 Misuse of Official Position.  You can read it HERE.

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

I found this in my email (and it seems that PALINGATES got one too):

I act as legal counsel to HarperCollins Publishers. I have just learned that you have posted substantial excerpts from our as yet unpublished book, Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, on your web site. We view your posting of these excerpts as an infringement of our and Governor Palin's exclusive rights under copyright.  Accordingly, we demand that you remove them from your web site.

Christopher Goff
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
HarperCollins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY  10022
Voice:  212 207 7127
Fax:    212 207 7552

******************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.

As you can see, I took the pages off the site.  However, the real story here is this:

--The Senior Vice President of Harper Collins,

--ON A SUNDAY,

--Sent emails to two specific blogs, one little blog based in Alaska, another based overseas,

--ignoring the multiple other outlets (many of which were larger or were "Palin-positive") that have pages or "extensive excerpts" from her book on the site.

They didn't do this on their own.  Palin  picked the ones she wanted them to email.  Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, my posts in question leaned towards fact-checking/lie-refuting than some of the others that were more for entertainment.

In other words, this was Palin-flattery!

I was once asked if, God forbid, Palin ever did become President, what would her first act be?  I stated that she would gather up the considerable resources available to a U.S. President and use them...to go after her "enemies" in Alaska and the media.  

I rest my case.

And in light of all this, the question I have for Mr. Goss and HarperCollins: HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PALIN'S BITCH?

My fairy godfather sent me pages from "Going Rogue"--here are two of them for you!

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:58:52 AM AKST

I just got them in the email and I'm working on a post for the later today, but I'll share two of them with you before I go to bed.

PAGE 352 is alluding to our friends, Gryphen and Dennis Zaki, regarding the "divorce" issue but it's also the first page where she starts to delve into the records requests (FOIA) and ethics complaints. PAGE 353 is a continuation of that.

You can see the beginning of the attacks on Andree McLeod.  There is more of that in the next several pages as well as dealing with Arctic Cat.  I'll share those as well as my thoughts on it all with you later today.

Undisclosed--What Palin's Financial Disclosure left out--Pt. 2 Arctic Cat & Iron Dog sponsors

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:58:09 PM AKDT

Sarah Palin filed her final POFD (Public Officer  Financial Disclosure) on time according to APOC (Alaska Public Offices  Commission) rules.

However, the document was less than thorough.

In Part One, we talked about how Palin failed to disclose a trust worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In Part Two, we'll look at the evidence that proves Sarah Palin is being less-than-truthful about Arctic Cat and Todd's other Iron Dog sponsors.  

The whole "Arctic Cat" issue began with:

--the ethics complaint I filed against Sarah Palin with the Personnel Board,
--its subsequent dismissal and
--my attempt at an appeal.

This all led to a simple question asked by Andree McLeod during public testimony at an APOC meeting:

You (Sarah Palin) have reported a "discount on snow machines" by Arctic Cat for Todd Palin. Was this discount exercised during calendar year 2008 and what was the amount of it?

Ms. McLeod was referring to Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2008.  The only thing disclosed as coming from the Arctic Cat sponsorship was a "50% discount" on a snowmachine and no actual monetary figure was included.  This violates APOC's requirement that anything over $1,000.00 needs to include the value if it was higher than $1,000.00.

As a result, APOC sent that question in the form of a "letter of inquiry" to Sarah Palin and received a response back claiming the amount of the snowmachine discount was "50% of the factory cost" and was therefore a "trade secret."

APOC rejected that claim and gave Palin a deadline to report the information.

Palin/Van Flein responded, now claiming ignorance as to the details of the contract, even though some of the details were revealed in the previous letter and even more of the contract details were shared in this one.  For example:

-The racers receive their Arctic wear for free while for others (through them) it was 50% discount and,

-Todd Palin receives a "sponsorship fee."

The APOC Staff made a recommendation, somehow coming to the conclusion that Palin had "revealed enough."

The Commission rather soundly rejected the staff recommendation during their September meeting and instead tasked them with finding out even more information from the Palins, including the amount of the "sponsorship fee" described in the last letter from Van Flein/Palin to the APOC.

This is where the investigation of last year's Financial Disclosure form stands at this moment.  

This brings us back to Monday's "Final" Financial Disclosure.

Regarding the Iron Dog and sponsorship benefits for the Palins--according to the paperwork, the only mention of ANYTHING Iron Dog (other than listing Todd's "winnings" as $3,500.00) is identifying Arctic Cat as a sponsor.  The only monetary value: "Arctic Cat discount on snowmachines is $3,252.00". So, the Palin's are claiming that the extent of Arctic Cat sponsorship value to Todd Palin is $3,252.

That's an interesting figure for a few reasons:

1)  On Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2007, she lists the total value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship as $7,500.00.  That was the year that Davis/Palin won the Iron Dog and the rewards for that win should have been reaped during the 2008 race...the year that Palin failed to attach ANY monetary value to the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  2008 was also the year that Sarah was the Republican VP candidate.  The Palins are asking us to believe that the value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship has GONE DOWN by over $4,000.00 AFTER their latest win and the former-Gov's new national stature?

2)  They have still dodged listing that pesky "sponsorship fee" that already has them under investigation for last year's POFD.  During the September APOC meeting, the other Commissioners were enlightened by Commissioner Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla who also happens to be a musher savvy about sponsorships:

When discussion ensued, Commissioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:

--The second paragraph states that:  "In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team."  Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team.  When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not.

I believe that this non-disclosure may turn out to be by far the most significant.

3)  As low-ball as the disclosed Arctic Cat figure may be, it is still higher than the $1,000.00 requirement for APOC disclosure.  Remember, Palin did not disclose a monetary figure for Arctic Cat for Calendar Year 2008, giving the impression that their monetary value was under $1,000.00.  In other words, we would have to believe that the snowmachine Todd Palin used last year in 2008, the year after his Iron Dog win, would have been much lower quality than the one they used in 2009.  

4)  The Palin's are attempting to pass-off their sponsorship discounts as the actual "value" of the item.  This is not correct.  In the instructions on filling out the POFD form, Section #6 is for listing "other income" and Section #7 is for "gifts."  The instructions for "other income" state:  "Report the source and amount of any other income over $1,000 not reported elsewhere."  However, the section on "gifts" states:  "Type, source & value of gifts worth over $250. Include multiple gifts from one source if they exceed $250."

Sponsorship actually combines the two.  A sponsorship deal includes a substantially discounted price for merchandise in exchange for the high-profile advertising of the successful race team. The actual retail value of the mechandise is THE INCOME BEING EXCHANGED.  In other words, they should be listing the "value" of the snowmachine as income, not the 50% they didn't have to pay after the price was already lowered TO THE FACTORY COST per the contract (that Sarah has never seen)!

The extremely low monetary value listed for the Arctic Cat sponsorship AND the absence of any other sponsorship names defies logic in comparison to the past two POFD's and for the other reasons listed above.  It also flies in the face of all evidence pointing to Davis/Palin having recently hit sponsorship gold...or maybe platinum according to their sponsorship levels on their website. Per Sports Illustrated:

Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.) They give inspirational speeches at trade shows. They are both adored and reviled. They are the New York Yankees of snow machining.

That one paragraph says so much, but I'd like to call your attention to the comment about the training sled.  Again, per Sports Illustrated:

Behold Todd Palin's snow machine, dangling from a truck's winch in the icy gray murk of an Alaskan winter morning. The machine is gleaming, new, scarcely ridden.

Scarcely ridden...which would indicate he either a) doesn't train much or b) he has another machine to train on.  We know the former isn't true, per People:

During each of the past 14 years, Todd has spent nearly two months training up to five hours a day for the 2,000-mile Iron Dog marathon. "He wouldn't do it if the family wasn't behind him," says Davis.

...and...

"Todd has been training a couple of hundred miles a day to get ready," Todd's racing partner, Scott Davis, a seven-time winner of the Iron Dog told PEOPLE. "We're ready."

Additionally, we have this picture from the Davis-Palin website. In a photo gallery titled "2009" I found this picture of these three identical Arctic Cat snowmachines (the ones they used during the Iron Dog 2009) at Scott Davis's place in Soldotna.

That's two for the race and one...errrr...extra?  I suspect there are four but the fourth one is not in the picture. Luckily, Men's Journal can explain it to us:

Davis owns a major construction company with lucrative state contracts, and this building - a kind of gearhead paradise, Alaska Rich Guy Version - is the reward, with a 40-foot mobile home parked along one wall, a shiny four-wheel ATV, and room for Davis's dozen snowmobiles, or, as the locals call them, "snowmachines." Four new ones - identical Arctic Cat F6s - take up the main work area, two for Davis, a seven-time Iron Dog winner himself, and two for Palin.

Did anyone see a "training sled" listed on the POFD?

Other benefits caught by the media:

Here is this winch and a really nice trailer, per Sports Illustrated:

And then there's the Arctic Cat mechanic, also per Sports Illustrated:

And then, a few hours later, Alaska's First Couple flies home to Wasilla, to resume normal life. Todd goes to his daughter Willow's basketball game. He tinkers with the boiler down in the basement, changes a water filter, and then gets together with Calvin Nolan, the Arctic Cat mechanic, to nail down what, exactly, went wrong.

There is also nothing mentioned on the POFD about transportation to speaking engagements or even the air and ground support costs on the Iron Dog Trail...hmmmm...

Remember..."Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing.  They are prodigiously sponsored..."

And while we've been rightly questioning the true extent of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, let's not neglect to mention that Davis/Palin has MANY sponsors who reach the Silver, Gold or Platinum levels on their website.  Of course,  all financial information is devoid from the site.  However you can tell who is at least at the "Silver" level by whose logo is actually at the top of the site.

Esquire Magazine, however, may have provided us with another sponsorship clue during their description of Davis/Palin getting the sleds ready for the 2009 race:

They've fitted them with additional gas tanks, sawed off pounds of extraneous metal and plastic, swapped in new Öhlins shocks, and made hundreds of other tiny tweaks and adjustments. The Öhlins cost about $2,500 a set, but they're worth it. You do this long enough and you learn where to scrimp and where to splurge.

I doubt there was any serious "splurging" going on since, if you check their website, Ohlins is at least a Silver sponsor.  More interestingly, even if their sponsorship agreement is the same as Arctic Cat, 50% off, that still puts those shocks OVER THE $1,000.00 REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE!  Where are they on the POFD form?  How many of the rest of those Silver, Gold and Platinum sponsors should be listed in the disclosure?

I think these two posts have made it extremely clear that what Sarah Palin tries to pass off as "disclosure" is simply a slap in the face to Alaskans.  She may have attempted to follow the laws before her VP Candidacy but shows no sign of it anymore.  She could potentially believe that no one can/will hold her accountable or maybe she just doesn't care as she has no intention of paying any fines even if they were to be levied against her.

On either count, I guess we'll have to see.

 

"We took her at her word"--APOC rejects staff recommendation regarding Palin

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:31:26 AM AKDT

I made it to the APOC Meeting Thursday, in spite of the fact that my daughter is battling the flu (every time the Ibuprofen wears off, her fever shoots up again...bad cough...sore throat...the works).  She said she felt OK if I left her for about an hour.  So, I went to:

1) See whether or not the Commission would accept the Staff Recommendation saying that Sarah Palin had (finally) "revealed enough" in regards to her Public Office Financial Disclosure (POFD)...i.e. gifts and Arctic Cat

2) Give public testimony (I'll cover that when I get the CDs tomorrow.  Andree McLeod made good points about the AK Fund Trust and why APOC should be involved).

First off, there just couldn't be two meetings as night-and-day as the Personnel Board vs. the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  It was professionally run from beginning to end.

Secondly, there was some very obvious "common sense" at work among the Commissioners and it was bipartisan in nature.  As a matter-of-fact, much of the serious questioning came from Republican member Kathleen Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla.  I think her career as a lawyer was much more important in this instance than the designation as "Republican" or "from Wasilla."  Also, she is a musher and is well-acquainted with the snow machining community.  She was the one who imparted knowledge to the Commission regarding the nature and value of sponsorships, the cost of snow machine equipment, etc...

APOC staff member Jerry Anderson presented the Staff Recommendation to the Commission and took everyone through the history:

When APOC first sent a letter questioning Palin's gift disclosure and Arctic Cat sponsorship disclosure;

Palin's response, claiming it's a "trade secret";

APOC rejecting the "trade secret" claim;

APOC Staff's Recommendation that Palin has "revealed enough."

After the presentation, Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson started the questioning by pointing out an "inconsistency" between the letter requesting the "trade secret" status, which stated:

and the most recent letter from Thomas Van Flein which claimed that:

"Governor Palin has no direct contact or communication with Arctic Cat.  She has not read, and under the terms of the contract, is not entitled to read, the specific sponsorship provisions but she is generally aware that Todd Palin is entitled to the discounts and fee as part of being a sponsored team."

As the Chair pointed out, the first letter gave much more than "general" information.  

When discussion ensued, Commisioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:

--The second paragraph states that:  "In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team."  Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team.  When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not.

(By this point, he had been joined at the table by a representative from the AG's office, Tom Dosik, who had been a part of a meeting with Van Flein.)

--Frederick asked, based on the 50% discount Todd Palin receives on "merchandise":

a) What equipment was part of that discount?
b) How many snomachines were included in that discount?
c) Had Palin/Van Flein revealed the dollar value of that equipment/discount?

In discussion, she explained that snowmachines of that caliber are worth approximately $15,000, which raised some eyebrows among the other Commissioners, and that didn't count the expense of the other merchandise.

Again, Anderson and Dosik admitted that information had not been revealed.

-- Palin claims the confidentiality clause of the contract prohibits her from knowing the information.  Frederick stated that would be very unusual, that most contracts of this nature allow the immediate family to share in the information.  Frederick asked if anyone had requested a redacted copy of the contract so that they could see that confidentiality clause.

It appeared that there was hesitation on the part of Anderson and Dosik.  Hickerson rephrased the question several times.  She asked them how they could be sure as to the nature of the confidentiality agreement.  The incredulous, (literally) forehead-slapping moment for me was when Tom Dosick from the AG's office stated:

"We took her at her word."

(That so perfectly sums-up my experience with the Attorney General's Office as well as the Personnel Board...there is no investigation, they simply "take her at her word.")

By that point, the Commissioner who had, rather hesitantly it seemed, seconded the motion to accept this report (probably so that discussion could occur) withdrew her second.  The motion died and the recommendation was rejected.

The Commission has now tasked the APOC Staff with three new duties:

1) They are to acquire information on the what merchandise was discounted to the Palins and at what monetary value.

2) They are to review a redacted version of the contract so they can examine the confidentiality agreement.

3) They are to find out the amount of the sponsorship fee.

At the end of the meeting, Hickerson asked the staff when Palin's final POFD is due into the office and received the answer:  October 26th.  This is the Financial Disclosure that covers this last Iron Dog...the one where the "Davis/Palin team was prodigiously sponsored."

This is SO not over.

APOC Meeting begins today and will cover far-reaching issues of disclosure

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 12:51:06 PM AKDT

Today, they are dealing with an interesting complaint from the Alaska Democratic Party from finance issues leading up to the last election-- October of 2008:

Under state law, an independent expenditure is only possible if there is no coordination between the person or group making the expenditure and the candidate or his campaign. The Democrats are filing a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, asking the commission to investigate how it happens that the party is attacking Crawford on the same point Brokaw has been attacking on, without coordinating the attack.

In August, Democratic Party officials asked the APOC whether a political party could legally make an independent expenditure on behalf of a candidate. APOC's Chris Ellingson told Alaska Democratic Party spokeswoman Kay Brown that it would be "hard for a party to do it and pass a straight-face test." She advised that any party entity doing an IE would have be "completely uninvolved" with the candidate and the candidate's campaign, and that there could be no contact about the campaign with the candidate, manager, or other agent of the candidate in order to legally do an independent expenditure.

Based on that advice, the Alaska Democratic party decided not to make independent expenditures.

"We wanted to stay in the center of the ethical playing field," Doogan said.

Ruedrich and the Republicans, who received the same advice from Ellingson, apparently decided differently.

This issue is scheduled to take the entire day, as the Republican Party is calling a myriad of witnesses...probably because this is a practice they want to continue.

The phrase "ethically bankrupt" comes to mind.

While I'll stop by today to discover if there's been a decision regarding the AK Dems complaint, the day I'm attending the meeting is tomorrow:

HEARING AGENDA
Thursday, September 24, 2009

4:00 - 4:30 Sarah Palin POFD Staff Recommendation [6]Presented by Jerry D. Anderson, APOC Staff

4:30 - 5:00 Public Comment Period

While it doesn't say the words "gifts" or "Arctic Cat," those are the disclosures for which the Staff has made recommendations regarding her 2008 Public Offices Financial Disclosure (POFD):

APOC and Palin went back and forth this summer over just what had to be disclosed. Palin didn't want to reveal details of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, saying it was proprietary information, and also argued that gifts were not "received" until they were opened.

APOC disagreed with her on both those points and Palin filed a new disclosure last month, listing more gifts and providing some information in the disclosure about Todd Palin's Arctic Cat sponsorship, while pleading ignorance of specifics.

Palin's lawyer, Tom Van Flein, told APOC that Palin "has not read the contract and does not know the specific terms of the contract."

"She has a general awareness that the sponsorship contract provides for discounts...Scott Davis is sponsored by Arctic Cat and has been for 15 years. As a sponsored team he, and his crew (which includes Todd Palin), can obtain Arctic Cat merchandise for 50% off of retail. In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team," Van Flein wrote.

APOC staff responded in Sept. 2 memo that Palin's response "appears to be appropriate...given the level of knowledge and disclosure of facts by this filer."

The staff will present their recommendation to the Commissioners tomorrow, immediately before the public comments period. I called the APOC staff and they do not know if the Commissioners will deliberate and make a decision before the public comments or not.

1) No one as of yet has made a complaint regarding specific gifts missing from Palin's 2008 gift disclosure.  I'm not sure if they will be able to act on anything unless they have specific evidence of missing gifts.

2) Regarding Arctic Cat...following the Staff Recommendation sets a dangerous precedent regarding disclosure for ALL public officials in Alaska.  A spouse of ANY public official could simply choose NOT to tell that official about their income (wink, wink) yet still use that income for the benefit of the family, including that public official.  

3) Business could "pay" these spouses in "discounts" to avoid disclosure.

4) Even if these "discounts" from Arctic Cat do not qualify as "income," they most certainly qualify as "gifts" which directly benefit Sarah Palin.  While "other income" must be reported if it is over $1,000 (according to POFD instructions), gifts over $250.00 must be reported...this includes the amount.

5) Sarah Palin has NOT answered any direct questions about the Arctic Cat income, though she DID report it in 2007...that means she consciously witheld it.  Sarah Palin did not provide the sponsorship amounts from ANY Iron Dog sponsor on her 2008 POFD.

Sarah Palin in NO WAY has satisfied the questions about the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  IN NO WAY has Sarah Palin followed the disclosure laws regarding the Arctic Cat sponsorship per APOC's POFD form instructions.

Public Comments are accepted in written form as well as verbally in front of the Commissioners.

Teleconference number: 1-800-315-6338, Code 4176

EMAIL: apoc@alaska.gov
 

September meetings regarding Palin's legal fate--Personnel Board **UPDATE from the trenches**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 21:35:05 PM AKDT

Arctic Cat

Several weeks ago, I received this certified letter (after the post office lost-then-found-it...a drama all by itself):

"In accordance with AS 39.52.335(e), the Personnel Board will review the following documents at their next meeting scheduled to begin at 12:00 p.m. on September 9, 2009 at 3601 C Street, Suite 880, Anchorage, Alaska:

--report dated June 2, 2009 prepared by Thomas M. Daninels, Esq., RE: Analysis of Kellen Ethics Complaint; and

--written comments you submitted in response to Mr. Daniels' report dated June 17, 2009.

Although the board is not compelling you to attend, an opportunity for you to address the board will be provided if you choose to do so.

I sent the "written comments" they are talking about to the Personnel Board after the Arctic Cat complaint was dismissed.  This is the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) version of an "appeal" by the complainant.

My "appeal" was based on these points:

1) The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act does not require proof of direct compensation to determine an ethics violation, only that the subject of the complaint "attempt to use his/her position for "benefit" or "personal gain."

My argument used the actual definitions of the words, plus brought in a number of examples, including a NASCAR study, proving the lucrative use of logos.  Sarah Palin knew that when she wore the outfit.

2)  The investigator ignored Alaska Executive Branch Ethic's Act's (EBEA's) definitions of personal "gain," "benefit" and "personal interest" and the relevance of these definitions in determining a conflict of interest by the Governor, claiming instead  that any "anticipated benefit" was all "conjectural."  

Again, I used the definitions of the words, and a past AG decision which cautioned people not to confuse the word "conjectural" with "potential."  A "potential" conflict is still a violation.

3)  The investigator ignored the importance of public officers avoiding a "conflict of interest" as stated in the EBEA's Declaration of Policy.

I pointed out that Palin had never worn logos to the Iron Dog before while Governor and there was NO NEED for her to do so this time...it was avoidable.  It was also awfully coincidental that she chose that moment when so much national attention would be turned her way.

4) The investigator stated to a reporter that the value of the Palins' 2008 sponsorship is "not yet available" per their Financial Disclosure Statement, a statement that was due to APOC in March of 2009, yet declared it irrelevant.

This was based on an interview with Rachel D'Oro:

The Arctic Cat sponsorship was valued at $7,500 in 2007, according to Palin's financial disclosure for that year. Daniel said the value of the 2008 sponsorship is not yet available, but added it's irrelevant because Palin had no agreement with Arctic Cat to wear the clothing.  ("Another ethics complaint against Palin dismissed," by Rachel D'Oro, Associated Press, http://www.adn.com/news/alaska... )

The point...by law that information was supposed to be available via her Financial Disclosure Statement due March 16th. Also,

"...since "benefit" includes as its definition "advantage or advancement," the 2008 Arctic Cat sponsorship figures from Palin's Alaska Public Offices Commission 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement are very relevant.  They could help verify whether a connection can be seen between the Palin's rise in the national spotlight and the increase in sponsorship dollars and opportunities for the Davis/Palin Iron Dog Team."

In a little over an hour, I'll be at today's Personnel Board Meeting defending my comments against Tom Daniel, the Investigator, in Executive Session...meaning I'll be all alone.  I'll update this post with the results tonight, after I decompress in the garden.

P.S.  Thanks to all of you for your support :D

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

Yup, it was a crazy meeting, as revealed by Sean Cockerham :

Tamagni said the board has represented the general public, followed the law and that "we spent a lot of taxpayer money, probably a little over a third of a million dollars or more. So I think we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this state."

He told McLeod she doesn't represent the majority of the people in the state and needs to think about what she's doing to the public. McLeod said she's keeping government accountable and common sense shows that Palin's personal interests were being kept above the state's interests. "And it's still going on by you guys defending it. That's a culture of corruption. Do not impugn my motive, Al, you know me better than that."

Tamagni: "Don't you impugn, infer, that I'm a corrupt individual. Because that's exactly what you've just done."

McLeod: "As a body."

Tamagni: "No, you referred to me personally...you'd better retract that because there's complaints that could be filed against you too."

McLeod: "For what?"

Tamagni: "Civil...civil cases. You just said I was corrupt."

They went back and forth for a bit.

"A board member has now threatened me," McLeod said.

Tamagni said it was not a threat, and he was simply advising her that "when you call me corrupt, for the record, that is defamation of character."

What Sean may have missed because it couldn't have been overheard on the tape (he was taping, my batteries died after five minutes...Murphy's Law...) is that Al Tagmani leaned over to Nikki Neal (Director of Personnel) and asked for a transcript of the meeting starting with Andree's testimony...he wanted it for potential legal action.

This exchange happened during the "public testimony" where, at one point, Mr. Tagmani also waxed poetic about how grateful we-the-public should be that we have an opportunity to speak at the meeting and that we are provided such a nice meeting space with (as he looked at the only visibly disabled person in the room...me) handicapped access.

When I testified (I wasn't planning to at the public testimony, just at the review of my "appeal" but I had to after the way they treated Andree) I reminded the Board that their entire purpose was to serve the public.  I also reminded them that there was a little thing called "The Open Meetings Act" and that the things Mr. Tagmani thought we should be grateful for were actually required by law and statute.   I talked about how I worked for a Federal agency for 15 years that had public meetings dealing with regulations about people's property, adjoining properties, schools and parks, etc...  I mentioned how frequently those meetings would hear testimony from angry people who used less-than-civil language...much more raucous than anything the Personnel Board had seen.  I also mentioned how I NEVER heard of any of MY co-workers accusing these people of "bitching" or threatened them with civil suits.    

It's called "public testimony" for a reason and may be the only time members of the public get to address issues that are important to them.  It's THE BOARD MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITY to be professional and accept angry testimony from the public...whether they like it or not.  This Personnel Board is NOT up to the task of this job...not by a long shot.

By the way...I also explained to Mr. Tagmani that when he used the term "frivolous complaints" a few months ago, it was irresponsible.  "Frivolous" complaints do not take months to investigate.

There is much more to tell...I haven't even touched on the whole part of the meeting about Arctic Cat...they refused to reopen the case.  (I am still trying to get the MSWord file of my "comments" as a link on here...it's not working.)  I'll do an additional post tomorrow morning.

What's up? A little summary including email and APOC news

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:24:00 AM AKDT

--I've been organizing my house and harvesting the garden each day (I pulled the rest of the broccoli tonight in order to blanch and freeze it tomorrow).  Plus, there are tasks we must get done before the snow flies.  Here, the snow is almost ALWAYS flying before All Hallows Eve...that's only about 8 weeks tops.

In memory of Segundo

--Last week I learned something I'd never known before...how Alaska treats its Rural residents after death.  

The get treated just as badly as they do in life.

I want to check with Ann before I get into the details of everything involved, what I WILL say is it cost over %7,000.00 just to get Segundo from Ugashik to Nunam Iqua (with a few day stop in Anchorage).

That's insane!  

This made it clear to me that I want to spend more time covering the huge, complex Rural issues on the blog.

Abbreviated Palin News

--Americans United for Change had a great idea...counter Sarah Palin in the same medium she's using by running an ad in Facebook (above). What a great idea!

--APOC and Arctic Cat--I contacted APOC, asking what they were going to do about Palin/Van Flein's non-answer to their inquiry.  Executive Director Holly Hill stated that a decision would be made at their next meeting, to be held in September.  I will keep you up to date on when the meeting is as soon as they announce it (and of course, I'll be there).

--After getting the first trickle I have yet to receive the rest of the emails from the Governor's Office.

However, today I just got a notice to pick up a certified letter from the state.  Since I can't think of anything else it could be (I don't think I have an outstanding ticket) I'm wondering if that's what's waiting for me at the post office. I'll let everyone know tomorrow.

I also need to catch up on where the AK Fund Trust issue stands, what's going on with the Juneteenth lawsuit, Andree McLeod's email case and the gifts issue with both APOC and the Executive Branch Ethic's Act.

APOC deadline today for Palin's Arctic Cat and gift disclosures--remember her "bribes?"

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:06:22 AM AKDT

Welcome to Monday, August 17th!

Sarah Palin has until midnight to disclose all of this information...and let's remember, it was ORIGINALLY DUE ON MARCH 16TH...when EVERY OTHER ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICIAL who was required to do so turned in their Financial Disclosure form!  She's been given a serious five-month grace-period!

We'll see if she complies today.

While I'll discuss more about the Arctic Cat issue tomorrow when we know what Palin's response will be, there is quite a bit to understand about Palin's biggest problem...her inability to report gifts properly both under the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) rules as well as the APOC rules.

Here is the video of Palin speaking at the Right-to-Life dinner in Indiana, where she talks facetiously about being "bribed" to go there (4:29):

She discusses the gifts they give her over time, the fact that they were sent to her office (this was a non-state-sanctioned event), that they were enjoyed by staff, press, etc...  When some were uncomfortable with the gifts issue being treated so casually and even questioned the potential ethics ramifications, Palin's followers went in full attack mode, accusing the questioners' motives, genetic heritage, etc...

However, through an investigation of Palin's gifts, it may be that those questions were not so far off base after all:

Here is the report of the infamous chocolates.  The "NO" is in response to the query "Is it necessary to report this to APOC."  Because this individual item is only $40.00, that would be true...unless more items were sent and depending on the CUMULATIVE cost remaining under $250.00.

So here's the second gift...

...also from Vanderburgh County Right-to-Life

And the third:

Cumulative $90.00, still nothing outrageous.

Here's the forth and fifth...not mentioned in the speech...cumulative is up to $130.00...still safe:

Here's where we start to get serious and where Sarah Palin is terribly fond of pushing the envelope.  These gifts are not marked as coming specifically from Vandenburgh Right to Life:

However, Palin mentions the hockey stick as being part of the "bribes." The others she didn't mention are clearly meant to encourage her to make the trip, either from business owners who were members of Vandenburgh Right-to-Life, would be attending the dinner or were purchased by other members.  This is where an APOC Complaint would be handy to ask the legitimate question, are these gifts now reportable to APOC because of their obviou link and now exceed the $250.00 cutoff?  (We're up to $340.00 to be exact.)

But, we're not even done.  Here's another box of chocolates from Evansville...this time from the owner of the chocolate shop!

Do you think the Libs family are members of Vandenburgh Right to Life?

Same for the Dunn family:

And what about the Zeidlers of "Zeidler's Flowers" who gave then-Governor Palin a $129.00 Orchid?

Yet, Sarah Palin simply writes "NO" when the total price tag of the Evansville gifts is $548.09!!!  Hell, the Corrupt Bastards (embarassingly) were busted by the Feds when being "bribed" by similar amounts!

We'll see if she reports these to APOC by midnight tonight.

Of course, it isn't just the amount that is a challenge for her, it's reporting them in a timely manner per the EBEA:

Note the art piece was given to Palin in September of 2008.  She didn't actually report it and get the form signed by the AG UNTIL MARCH 2009!  Time-frame gifts are supposed to be reported within:  30 days.

And these are only the gifts that she's actually reported.  We haven't even talked about the ones that she hasn't:

On Monday, July 20, 2009, I (along with most local media and bloggers) received a press release regarding another ethics complaint filed with the Attorney General's office by Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod.  The charges are that "Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act for failure to submit completed and signed gift disclosure forms claiming gifts received by her and her family."

The press release continued:

"Governor Palin intentionally and willfully broke the Ethics Act by not claiming gifts timely, if at all," McLeod said.

The Ethics Act is exceedingly and simply clear in that officials MUST claim gifts within 30 days of receipt. Yet, Sarah Palin states in a June 15th letter, "There are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008.  Thus, as initially disclosed, 'we continue to open boxes' and we consider any parcel "received" at the time it is opened."

"The governor's statement sets off alarms. Alaskans expect their public officials to follow the rules of law; especially the ones that are intended to keep them honest," McLeod said.  "Instead this woman admits to having no intention of complying with our laws."  

McLeod continues, "What possible reason is there for Palin to keep all these gifts a secret for so long? Why has she not disclosed them by the book now before quitting? "

This Ethics Complaint is still outstanding and I await its outcome.  As for the extent of Palin's cooperation with APOC, we'll know in a few hours.

Palin & emails, Arctic Cat, gifts, AK Fund Trust...how many "dropping shoes" does one person need?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:00 PM AKDT

In a piece by Justin Miller in "The Atlantic" yesterday titled "The Shoe that didn't Drop," Miller claims that there is no "scandal" that has influenced Palin to leave office:

The closest Palin is being examined is by an ethics investigator in Alaska who said it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official to collect donations for a private legal defense fund. However, the investigator suggests Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters.

First off, Shannyn Moore and everyone else who talked about possible attention from the Feds NEVER SAID THE WORD FBI...they said F-E-D-E-R-A-L.  So, when the FBI did it's Van Flein-influenced-denial of any investigation into Palin, that was a clever political ADD distraction.  It worked, enhancing my theory that most journalists have ADD.

Last I checked, the IRS is a federal agency and I can attest to the number of emails I have received from folks telling me they reported the Palins to the IRS.  Having been a Fed for 15 years, I can PROMISE you that those emails will NOT be ignored...mainly because it's no skin off their nose to check into the allegations.

Secondly, the bit about the "closest" Palin has been examined is by the ethics investigator who found that "it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official"...as if it's no big deal.

Huh?  Misusing your position as a public official for financial gain is no big deal?  Where does this guy come from?

As a little explanation to Mr. Miller, and an update to everyone else, allow me to point out some information from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) I pointed out last week.

1)  The portion that Mr. Miller summarizes from Tom Daniel's report, that "Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters", was the remedy offered to Palin by Investigator Daniel.  As we knew when this report became public, Palin and Van Flein had ignored the report for a week.  Since the AK Fund Trust website is still up and accepting donations, we can safely assume that they have yet to accept that remedy.  Since that remedy was offered on July 14th and today is August 5th, I would think the time for acceptance has passed, so:

2)  Because, per the EBEA, "the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action," Investigator Daniel SHOULD have sent/be sending a formal copy of the accusations to the Palins, which lays out the specific violation.  We should know as soon as this happens because EVERYTHING FROM THAT POINT FORWARD BECOMES PUBLIC INFORMATION.  

3) There are three possible replies to the formal accusation letter that Palin can make:

- Denial of the violation:  This then results in a hearing which involves a hearing officer (judge) and a formal procedure.  The only way for Palin to be able to claim "no wrongdoing" is if the issue is completely dismissed after this process.  Because she ignored the remedy, that isn't very likely.

- Acceptance of the violation:  Palin's case would then automatically be sent to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.

- Palin "does not respond in a timely manner" (or ignores the charges):  "The allegations are considered admitted."  This means they automatically go to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.  I find this scenario to be the most likely because in my experience with the Palins, they have a difficult time with deadlines.

Unless the unlikely occurs and the violation is dismissed after a full, public hearing, Palin has lost her "meme" that "she has not been found to have committed any wrongdoing."  Somehow, I don't find any of this to be a "minor" issue.

It's also not the only thing nipping at Palin's heels:

Arctic Cat

I spoke last week with Holly Hill, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  I was double checking that she had received all of the documents I had sent the week before.  I asked if the response to Van Flein would soon be forthcoming regarding their claim that their benefits from Arctic Cat qualify as a "trade secret."  I mentioned how concerned I was about how this might effect attempts at income secrecy from other public officials.  Ms. Hill assured me that there were very many officials who had expressed concern about this upcoming decision as well.  She also stated that it probably wouldn't be out until the next meeting.

Interestingly enough, it came out early and a big "thank you" to Sean Cockerham and Lisa Demer for covering it:

In one lingering issue, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship.

and...

APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."

Personnel Board:  I turned comments into the Personnel Board refuting the Arctic Cat dismissal and have been watching and waiting for their next meeting.  That's most likely when they will have a "hearing" on them.

Emails:

First, to start out with the "most asked" issue...I have heard nothing more from Linda Perez on the emails.  My target date to start bugging them about it is August 24th although they have until September (the deadline).  I am very, very eager to see what I'll get and I'll pursue this until the bitter end.

Next, Sean and Lisa covered Andree McLeod's email cases very well:

A judge on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod, who is seeking to ban the practice and is arguing it could hide information the public has a fundamental right to see.

and (emphasis mine)...

"This is not something between Andree McLeod and former Gov. Palin. This is a very serious public policy issue," McLeod's lawyer, Don Mitchell, told the judge Tuesday.

The heart of the case is whether private e-mails obstruct the public's right to public information, Mitchell said.

Mike Mitchell, arguing for the state, said many e-mails aren't public records anyway because they are too trivial. McLeod is trying to expand the definition of a public record, and not just for the governor's office, he said.

What do you mean "too trivial?"  Who makes the decision on what's trivial and what isn't?  Emails about emails could be considered "trivial" except, in this case, they are not.  According to every Federal Law I understand, all information produced in government service is fair game.

Gifts

I have believed all along that these will be the bane of her existence.  

APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.

Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."

Andree has an excellent pending ethics complaint regarding the gifts and I believe Palin will encounter significant trouble with APOC regarding them as well.  I have a much more thorough post started on the gifts issue that I'll put out this week.

As you can see, it's a veritable rainstorm of shoes in the Palin camp these days.  It would be foolish to dismiss them offhand just because they are not federal indictments.  As we've seen in Alaska, federal indictments aren't always very successful.

Ethics 101 for ethically-ignorant writer Josh Painter **UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 23:17:30 PM AKDT

*****************************UPDATE********************

I can finally post over there now.

*******************************************************

Golly, I feel so popular these days!  Amanda Carpenter did an article in the Washington Times on the two new ethics complaints against the Governor.  Even though I had nothing to do with either one of them, mine was the only name mentioned.

Now, it seems that Josh Painter decided that he needed to write a "Memo to Linda Kellen Biegel" over on Redstate.com regarding President Obama's appearance at the Baseball All Stars Game where he threw out the first pitch.  

He was wearing a jacket from his home town team, the Chicago White Sox:

As you can see from the attached photograph, this federal employee is in clear violation of Sec. 2635.101 of the Standards Of Ethical Conduct For Employees Of The Executive Branch, Subpart A, "General Provisions" - which states:

(8) Employees shall act impartially
and not give preferential treatment to
any private organization or individual.

He brandished this logo jacket while acting in his official capacity as President of the United States and official starter of Major League Baseball's 2009 All Star Game, where he became the fourth U.S. president to ceremoniously throw the first pitch.

Not only was he well aware that there would be extensive national media coverage, the president also knew that international magazine Sports Illustrated was covering the event and Fox was televising it live.

Normally I wouldn't bother with this silliness, but my attempts to post a comment on the article have failed.  Even though I established an account and followed instructions, it's acting like my IP has been banned.  I'm going to assume it's just a glitch.  

I'm also going to post my response to Mr. Painter here and hope that he gets an opportunity to educate himself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Painter:

1) Preferential treatment = official acts as President -- Last I checked, throwing out the first ball isn't an official act of his office.

2) Preferential treatment = commercial endorsement -- Being a fan of a sports team is NOT a commercial endorsement. I believe there is even case law out there specifying that.

3) Preferential treatment = influence if government contracts are involved. I am not aware that the sports organization does any contracting with the federal government.  Even then, it may not apply because the President doesn't sit on contracting selection panels.

--Regarding wearing the logo...

Unlike Sarah Palin, who is being investigated by the APOC for refusing to reveal how much Arctic Cat paid them last year,  the President does not receive any income from the team nor does any family member. The President also (to my knowledge) does not own any stock in the team.

--If the coat is a gift...

Restrictions depend on 1) How much it costs, 2) who gave it to him.

If it was a government contractor, he can't accept. If it was a government employee he can hire and fire, the price cutoff is much lower for him not be able to accept. If it was a family member or friend (or a government employee whose friendship/family relationship supercedes the work relationship) he's good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Painter, I was a Fed for 15 years and went through hours of ethics training/briefings each year.  Your attempt at arguing federal ethics with me is like the old adage...I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Next time, you may want to consider arming yourself.

Like I said, Arctic Cat isn't over...

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:09:19 AM AKDT

I knew when I got up this morning that today was going to be one busy day.  I had to finish my "comments" and turn them in to the Personnel Board...the comments that are in response to the summary report by Investigator Thomas Daniel which dismissed the Arctic Cat Complaint for "no probable cause."  I knew I had to finish them early in the afternoon because I had to write my public testimony for the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting held today and tomorrow.

I felt especially moved to give public testimony because I received the following in my email the night before.  It is a response from the Governor (OK, really from Van Flein) to the letter of inquiry sent by APOC back in March:

First...let's talk about the secrecy regarding this entire Arctic Cat process...stuff I didn't want to discuss until after I sent off my response to the Personnel Board.

The Investigator on the Arctic Cat complaint, Mr. Thomas Daniel, asked Gov. Palin nine questions and was permitted (by Van Flein...those Legal Defense Fund dollars at work) to look at the Arctic Cat Contract as long as he "kept it confidential."  Once Palin "waived her confidentiality" and they released the report, I asked for all of that information SINCE IT WAS WHAT HE BASED HIS DECISION UPON.

Mr. Daniel states that he is getting an Attorney General opinion because he believes that they need to...get this...keep that information "confidential" because it is the "product of attorneys."

So, what he seems to be saying is that his dealings with Mr. Van Flein are "confidential" because they are both attorneys...You know, as if he were an attorney working FOR THE PALINS instead of the Investigator working for the State of Alaska...the job he was contracted to do.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  What part of "waiver of confidentiality" does Mr. Daniel not understand?  Not to mention, almost EVERY legal document can be called a "product of lawyers!"  The report itself is the product of a lawyer, yet he released it!

So, I'll let you know how THAT bit of attempted bullshit secrecy develops.

Back to the Governor's response to the APOC letter...let's discuss those "Alaska Statutes" they are trying to use to justify keeping Todd's discounts confidential.  They are...I kid you not...part of the Alaska Statutes establishing Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)!!!

No...I'm NOT kidding!

Title 43. Revenue and Taxation

Chapter 90. Alaska Gasline Inducement Act

AS 43.90.150. Proprietary Information and Trade Secrets.

AS 43.90.220. Records, Reports, Conditions, and Audit Requirements.

If you read these, there is absolutely NOTHING that applies to anything other than AGIA.  To me, this looks like a "Hail Mary" pass by Mr. Van Flein and the Governor.  

As Sean Cockerham reported, the APOC decided to investigate this at the meeting today.  (They politely let me know right after my testimony...that was asking them to please investigate this!)  We'll see what APOC finds. Also, for those of you who may not know, APOC generally DOES NOT do investigations unless there is a complaint involved.  This is significant.

Of course, my day didn't end at the APOC Meeting.  I testified at the Assembly Chambers tonight in favor of Ordinance 64...but THAT will have to wait until tomorrow.

Ethicist Robert Wechsler weighs in on complaint dismissal

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 04:36:12 AM AKDT

Sure enough, he had.

I originally found the CityEthics blog when I filed the complaint and Mr. Wechsler wrote about it in a piece titled Unethical Harassment and Wearing Logos:

When I saw the headline from the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin Calls Blogger's Ethics Complaint Bogus," and saw that it had to do with clothing the governor wore, I thought I might write a piece about using ethics complaints for the purpose of political harassment. But when I read the article, I realized that the complaint was not frivolous, and that the governor's criticism of it was worthy of taking note.

In a June 4th post about the dismissal, titled Misrepresenting Ethics Law in Highly Visible Case, Mr. Wechsler doesn't mince words in reference to the Administration's reaction and the report from Personnel Board Investigator, Thomas Daniel:

The relevant ethics act provision does not require proof of a bribe, which is essentially what the report states. Proving that there was a direct exchange of something in return for an act is not only very difficult, it is also unnecessary under the ethics act.

In fact, the provision only requires that an official "attempt to use" her position for personal gain. No gain has to actually occur. But in this case there was clearly gain to the family in the company's sponsorship of the Governor's husband. Whether or not the Governor was required as part of a deal with the company to wear the jacket at the particular occasion is irrelevant.

He even has a message for the Palin-bots:

I have no doubt that I will be falsely attacked in the blogosphere as a Democrat who never criticizes Democrats, as I was when I wrote about this complaint when it was filed (nor will my post on abusing the ethics process, with respect to Gov. Palin, be mentioned).

And that's why I'm writing this -- because such a highly visible, contentious complaint must be dealt with responsibly. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the honest presentation and interpretation of the law. This was not done here. I don't know if the people who misrepresented the law and the appropriate burden of proof were Democrats, Republicans, or independents. And I don't care

I have not agreed with all of Mr. Wechsler's posts on the subject, but I believe he's got this one pegged.

GOV-4-SALE

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 20:25:08 PM AKDT

I've been working today on the house and other projects...some of which you'll hopefully see in a few days on the blog and other places.  I didn't get an opportunity to cruise the other blogs until this afternoon.

Mudflats did a beautiful job of transcribing Darth Stapletongue's...I mean...Sarah Palin's speech from last night's Michael Reagan appearance (as an adopted kid myself, I can't imagine speaking the way he did about his brothers and sisters...what a pig).  I read most of it but hadn't had enough coffee to allow me to make it through the whole thing.  It wasn't until later that a friend called me and said..."Please, please tell me she did NOT talk about her shoes!"

Uhhhh...I guess I missed something.  I went back to the computer while I was on the phone and read the rest of the speech.

Good Lord...I couldn't believe it:

So I encourage Michael just to keep on speaking up, and for me....you know me....  Before my Franco Sarto red high heels even get off the stage and touch the floor my critics, they're going to be loaded for bear and they're going to start unloading because, because I dared speak up.

***INSERT PRODUCT PLACEMENT***HERE***

***CUE COMMERCIAL***

"Yes, Governor Palin is sporting a beeeeeautiful new pair of Franco Sarto red patent leather "Talk" shoes.  YOU BETCHA that you can have that fresh, BOLD look of your very own on sale this week at Nordstroms for $59.99!!!"

***END COMMERCIAL***

If anyone can find a speech where an national or state public officer promos a clothing designer they are wearing while giving a policy speech, I'd be interested to see it.

I also doubt it was coincidental that, just a paragraph or two later, she mentioned the dismissal of the Arctic Cat complaint (of course, mentioning Arctic Cat at the time).  

I asked the friend who told me about the price "Do you think Palin bought them for $59.99?"

Her response:  "I don't know, but I'll bet she never does again!"

I believe the line is "We've already established WHAT you are, now we're just dickering over the price."

Complaint Dismissal...yep, this is the post...**UPDATE 2**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 17:51:46 PM AKDT

Yes, it happened and after the last two weeks, it's no great surprise.  Once again, we have a lawyer/investigator who based the determination VERY narrowly.  This time, Mr. Daniels claims that there needs to be direct proof of financial benefit.  (i.e. can I prove that someone put cash in their hand and said "now wear the jacket.")

However, according to the Executive Branch Ethics Law, I don't have to prove that.  In its definitions:

"benefit" means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, service, privilege, exemption, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything of value

Advantage, advancement or anything of value -- The Davis/Palin Team already has an advantage over most of the other competitors and that includes others who have won before:

"Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.)

In my complaint, the point was never about who gave her the jacket or how she got the jacket at all.  The point was that the Palins DERIVED BENEFIT from her WEARING that jacket based on the influence it had on Arctic Cat ALONE!  Sarah Palin wearing that jacket WHILE ACTING AS GOVERNOR through international media coverage gave Arctic Cat free exposure to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

The proof of that "benefit" is how the Arctic Cat reps the Palins on their website anytime the Palins give them exposure.

If you didn't get a chance to see SNL, be sure to check out the great National coverage we received here. You'll find this clip alone has been seen by more than 2.3 million people! We hope that you share in our excitement over the publicity we've received in the last week. We're proud of our brand and even more proud of you, and your commitment to sharing the Arctic Cat passion.

I find that to be pretty solid evidence that Arctic Cat has been influenced enough to effect decisions in the future (whether overtly or subliminally) regarding Todd Palin.  If Sarah Palin was a private citizen, that would be great.  However, she's not and at this event she was acting as the Governor of Alaska.

According to the Ethics Act definition of "benefit," that's enough.

In this report, I found one issue glaringly absent from Mr. Daniel's interpretation of the ethics law:

(A) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain

So, Mr. Daniel's acknowledges that it's conceivable that the Governor wore the jacket because she believed doing so might result in financial gain in the future...doesn't that qualify as "an attempt to use?"  If that doesn't, what does?  Wouldn't this have been reason ehough to require a hearing and call witnesses or do we now only accuse someone of a violation if they confess to it?

Well, folks, the issues around Arctic Cat are not over.  

-- I await breathlessly the answer to APOC's questions regarding her Financial Disclosure form.  

-- I'm also still waiting for the final tally on how much the revised records request will cost

As soon as I decide on my next step, you guys will be the first to know!

*******************************UPDATE*************************

Here's the AP story by Rachel D'Oro, where Thomas Daniel says something very interesting:

The Arctic Cat sponsorship was valued at $7,500 in 2007, according to Palin's financial disclosure for that year. Daniel said the value of the 2008 sponsorship is not yet available...

It's not available?  Palin's Financial Disclosure form for year 2008 was LONG AGO available:

Arctic Cat-----Discount on Snowmachines

That's all they wrote. Because there was no amount written down next to the name, that means the worth must be UNDER $1,000.00!!!!

Does that make any logical sense the year AFTER he won the race?

*********************************UPDATE******************************

Again, my complaint WAS NOT about where the clothing came from...that's a completely different issue.  However, I did want to pass on Lawyer Tom Daniel's reply to my email question about the embroidery on the jacket -- the claim is that Scott Davis's wife did the embroidery on both of them.

She is on the right and you can see that her jacket is monogrammed as well.

I have a mother-in-law who is an amazing quilter and seamstress.  She does NOT have equipment that could sew through material that thick. Either Davis's wife does that stuff all of the time and has professional equipment or she did them by hand.

Of course, no one is talking about where Piper got her outfit.

Or where Sarah's matching pants came from:

The Gov.'s Gifts--Part II: Why Andree McLeod scares the hell out of the Administration. *UPDATE*

by: Celtic Diva

Sun May 10, 2009 at 02:32:41 AM AKDT

We also discussed the yearly reporting requirements under the Alaska Public Offices Commission and mentioned testimony given by Andree McLeod at their latest quarterly meeting regarding those gifts.

You may have wondered:  Why was Andree McLeod testifying at that APOC meeting?  

On the agenda, the APOC was going to provide the answers to several "Advisory Opinion Requests" put in from Linda Perez for her boss, the Governor.  (Requests for "Advisory Opinions" come from candidates or other public employees who may be confused as to whether or not they need to report something specific on any of their APOC documents.  Here, we were talking about gifts so it was in reference to the Governor's financial disclosure form (POFD).)

The first of the Advisory Opinion Requests from Linda Perez was AO-09-05-POFD:

If Governor Palin donates to third parties the gifts that were received by her or her family as a result of her vice-presidential candidacy, must she report those gifts under Alaska's Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is yes.  Even if a gift is donated to a third party, it must still be reported on the Governor's annual Public Official Financial Disclosure form.

So in other words, if the Governor...say...donates a bunch of clothes she just wore a couple of times to a charity organization, she must still report it on her gift disclosure forms.  Hmmmmm...

The second Advisory Opinion Request, AO-09-06-POFD, was related:

If a public official receives a gift, and returns that gift to the individual who gave it, must the public official report the gift under Alaska's Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is no.  A proffered gift which is not accepted by a public official does not need to be reported on a Public Official Financial Disclosure Form.

So, hypothetically, if you were "given" a bunch of clothes by the Republican Party but you gave them back to the Republican Party then you wouldn't have to report them on your POFD.

Or would you?

When dicussion on this came up at the meeting, there was a spirited debate among the Commissioners because one important issue was not addressed in the response...the fact that NO BENEFIT could be derived before the "gifts" were returned.  

The decision was made for a rewrite of the response for the next meeting to address the issue of "no benefit."  So, hypothetically, the next meeting (June) the decision will be made whether wearing clothes before they are given back derives a benefit.

As I stated before, Ms. McLeod testified the day before in anticipation of the answers to Linda Perez's Advisory Opinion Requests.  Two of the issues Ms. McLeod raised were the subject of much discussion during "unfinished business" section on the second day.

1)  Would you please request Palin to submit the appropriate amendments to her [financial disclosure] report instead of waiting for a complaint?

2)  Why did Palin not completely disclose gifts she received last year?  There have been reports of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothes, hair and make-up services that she and the family received yet they are missing from the report, although the travel costs are included. Though on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin was still in the role of governor and must abide by Alaska financial disclosure laws.  For consistency's sake, could you please request a full accounting of those clothes, hair and make-up services?  Even if they were given away, they were still gifts that she and her family did receive and must be accounted for in the report, as well as other gifts she received on the campaign trail.

During the discussion, it was clear that one of the members of the Commission (Kathleen Fredrick, the Republican member from Wasilla) felt that anyone who saw anything they believed to be incorrect should be forced to file a complaint before the APOC should investigate.  In other words, that would completely put the responsibility for honest politicians and campaigns on the shoulders of the public.  Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson did not agree, stating that Commissioners had the authority to investigate without the need for a formal complaint.  

Several of the Commissioners agreed that they found the first two items of Andree McLeod's testimony disturbing and upon discovery that the staff regularly sent out inquiries to public officials even without a complaint on file, they requested that the staff ask Governor Palin for clarification.

A letter, dated April 29, 2009, was sent to Governor Palin.  It stated that it was in response to testimony from the APOC meeting and it asked for two items of clarification:

1) Are there gifts which have been received by you or your family in your personal capacity during calendar year 2008, which have not been reported on your 2009 public official financial disclosure statement covering the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008?  If so, please amend your most recent disclosure statement to reflect this information.

This question was directly related to the public testimony given by Andree McLeod at the meeting.

The second question surprised me:

2) You have reported a "discount on snow machines" by Arctic Cat for Todd Palin. Was this discount exercised during calendar year 2008 and what was the amount of it?

Why is this question significant?  Governor Palin only listed the names of Todd's Iron Dog sponsors on her 2009 (covering calendar year 2008) financial disclosure statement, not any amounts.  This is different from her 2008 financial disclosure (calendar year 2007), where the Palin's claimed a total of $7,500.00 income/gifts from Arctic Cat.  Listing only the names of the sponsors and not the amounts is "legal" as long as the gifts for each sponsor total LESS THAN $1,000.00.

Remember, 2008 was the year AFTER he and Scott Davis won.  Also remember this is now a separate question coming directly from APOC regarding "disclosure" on her forms.  It's not affiliated with any other agency.  

(Next:  we'll look at the pieces of a smear campaign orchestrated by "Chief of Backlash" Mike Nizich against Andree McLeod.)

*UPDATED with links to Gov. Palin's financial disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009.

*All information for this piece was obtained:

1) - through attendance at the quarterly APOC meeting in April

2) - through $5.00 purchase of the CDs containing the raw recording information used in the eventual minutes of the meeting.  The minutes will not be available until the June meeting.

3) - through hard copies of the the "Advisory Opinion Requests" from Linda Perez and APOC's responses to those requests.

3) - via emails from the participants.  

American Chopper turns into another Arctic Cat promo opportunity

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 15:38:04 PM AKDT

"We've got an Arctic Cat, a couple of different kinds of race machines..."

People Magazine has the continuation of that conversation in their article on the show.

Paul Sr. hangs out with the Governor in her office and talks about the Alaskan weather, snowmobiling and fishing in the summer. "I inherit whatever [husband] Todd rejects from the year before," Palin says.

A-freakin'-mazing...

You can watch the full show tomorrow.

By the way, this bike was raffled off for the benefit of Chidren's Hospital at Providence on March 28th.

Yes, the Governor is still wearing the Arctic Cat jacket.

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:59:38 PM AKDT

Here's a photo from the Slush Cup:

Here's the link to C4Ps article on the Slush Cup:  http://www.conservatives4palin...

Here are the posts on the complaint:

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

Talk amongst yourselves...

The Governor and her Gifts--Part 1--A little background

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 08:48:08 AM AKDT

--Over the weekend, "Palingates" recounted a fanatical "Team Sarah" member gushing over  recently receiving a thank-you note from the Palins:

Generous Elizabeth, a member of a certain Team connected to our Sarah, was over the moon upon receiving a thank you card from Bristol after sending a couple of gifts for Trig and Piper.

I just received a card from Bristol :)

I think it was sweet of her to send this!

Further down in the thread, replying to envious comments, such as :

Another card from the Palins? LOL, Good on you girl. Are you collecting Palin Cards or something? :)

Generous Elizabeth waxed lyric:

Hehe, I only have 2 right now. I just love sending them stuff and showing my support, and they are just so sweet enough to send out replies! :)

To which another fan commented:

They are so lucky to have such a special friend like you Elizabeth! Perhaps they'll put you on their Christmas card list? Now wouldn't that be something?

Do you have an address where we can all send gifts?

--So they must be continuing to open all of those boxes of gifts and letters Chuck Heath talked about in an interview with Grandparents.com

"In Sarah's mailroom, there's 87 boxes - big boxes of mail that haven't even been opened. I've been answering letters all day, all week. We figure there's over a hundred thousand pieces here. And we'll never get it done. We're just inundated."

--Gifts are regulated through The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act:  

Sec. 39.52.130. Improper gifts.

(a) A public officer may not solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift,
whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, employment,
promise, or in any other form, that is a benefit to the officer's personal or financial interests,
under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence
the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment. A gift from a person required to register as a lobbyist under AS 24.45.041 to a public officer or a public officer's immediate family member is presumed to be intended to influence the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment unless the giver is an immediate family member of the person receiving the gift.

(b) Notice of the receipt by a public officer of a gift with a value in excess of $150, including the name of the giver and a description of the gift and its approximate value, must be provided to the designated supervisor within 30 days after the date of its receipt

--The forms filed by the Governor's Office every 30 days disclosing those gifts are subject to records requests by the public.  The public is finding those disclosures to be less-than-complete, as we will see later in this post.

(Make a mental note of the "in excess of $150.00" requirement bolded and underlined above.  We will be "revisiting" that in future posts on this topic.)

--The Governor is also required by the Alaska Public Offices Commission to fill out yearly Financial Disclosure forms.  This year, the Governor's were less-than-complete as she a) fails to list actual monetary figures at all regarding how much her husband received from his Iron Dog sponsors b) fails to list precise monetary figures as to the exact nature of her legal debts and c) fails to list how much legal debt applies to each complaint (i.e. how much of the legal debt applied to the very expensive complaint which she filed against herself?)  

--Remember that Governor Palin did NOT "turn over the reigns" to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell while she was campaigning for Vice President.  This had the probably unintended consequence of making all of the gifts accepted on the campaign trail subject to Ethics Act restrictions as well.  

--This brings us to the Seven Requests Andree McLeod made of APOC during Thursday's public testimony in front of the Alaska Public Offices Commission at their quarterly meeting:

1)  Would you please request Palin to submit the appropriate amendments to her [financial disclosure] report instead of waiting for a complaint?  

2)  Why did Palin not completely disclose gifts she received last year?  There have been reports of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothes, hair and make-up services that she and the family received yet they are missing from the report, although the travel costs are included. Though on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin was still in the role of governor and must abide by Alaska financial disclosure laws.  For consistency's sake, could you please request a full accounting of those clothes, hair and make-up services?  Even if they were given away, they were still gifts that she and her family did receive and must be accounted for in the report, as well as other gifts she received on the campaign trail.  

3)  Why are there gifts missing from Palin's APOC report that she's received according to gift disclosure forms on file?

4)  There have been reports that Bristol Palin's fiancé Levi Johnston's lived at the Palin household in 2008.  Why is that not reflected in the report?  Wouldn't Palin have to disclose his income in the report too?

5)  Why is the dollar amount of gifts and/or discounts missing from Todd Palin's list of gifts received from sponsors for his Iron Dog business?

6)  Why is the dollar amount missing from the listed legal debt? Shouldn't that debt be more detailed and be listed case by case?  

7)  There's talk of a legal trust fund forming for Sarah Palin, her family and state colleagues.  There might be laws addressing the legality of such a coordinated fund for public officials.  But never before in Alaska 's history has someone had at least 500,000 people on their facebook page.  Never before has there been the potential of those people contributing an average of $100 towards such a fund.  That would total $50 million.  Half of that is $25 million.  A quarter of that is $12.5 million. And an eighth of that - I'll need a calculator.

In Part 2, we'll look at a) responses to some of these questions by APOC as well as b) how the Legal Defense Fund Trust plays into all of this.

A real, live ethicist supports my complaint against Gov. Palin!

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 21:05:11 PM AKDT

Unethical Harassment and Wearing Logos

When I saw the headline from the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin Calls Blogger's Ethics Complaint Bogus," and saw that it had to do with clothing the governor wore, I thought I might write a piece about using ethics complaints for the purpose of political harassment. But when I read the article, I realized that the complaint was not frivolous, and that the governor's criticism of it was worthy of taking note. And there's even an issue here that local government officials could learn from.

First the complaint. It involved the governor wearing Arctic Cat logo gear during this year's Tesoro Iron Dog snow machine race. Arctic Cat is the sponsor of the governor's husband in this race. In other words, the governor's family is paid, at least in goods, by the company she was advertising by wearing the gear (in fact, the governor's spokesperson could not say whether or not the governor's gear had been provided by the company, which would bring up other, more serious ethics issues). The governor appeared, wearing the logo, in Sports Illustrated and most likely in local newspapers, as well. Was this an appropriate use of her office?

Here is the governor's response, not verbally, but in a press release:

Yes, I wore Arctic Cat snow gear at an outdoor event, because it was cold outside, and by the way, today, I am wearing clothes bearing the names of Alaska artists, and a Glennallen Panthers basketball hoodie. I am a walking billboard for the team's fundraiser! Should I expect to see an ethics charge for wearing these, or the Carhartts I wear to many public events? How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?

Are Alaskans outraged, or at least tired of this yet -- another frivolous ethics charge by a political blogger? This would be hilarious if it weren't so expensive for the state to process these accusations and for me to defend against these bogus harassments.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics
----------------------------------------------------------------

I called Mr. Wechsler and had a really good conversation with him about the issues, plus we began to discuss possible reasons/solutions for Alaska's ethical challenges.  I was surprised that our conversation lead to another post when I went back several days later, which I'll post in the future.

However, we also discussed a previous post of his...one he made in September during Gov. Palin's campaign for VP.

(more below the fold)